This was the first theme that emerged from the data. Here the participants gave an insight into how they experience the process of curriculum change. This change experienced was being organised by the department of education in conjunction with the labour unions most especially SADTU. The conventional approach used by the curriculum disseminators was to organise workshops or seminars for teachers with their respective subject groups. Such workshops are understood to have been done nationwide to all the accounting teachers when the auditing aspect of accounting was being added into the curriculum. When the participants were being asked how helpful had the curriculum change workshop been to them in their teaching of the auditing aspect of accounting, almost all the participants responded that the workshop had not been very helpful. Nevertheless, there was some positive note that the participants reported about the workshop that was organised for them. This positive response was in terms of acknowledgement of being told about the changes in the new curriculum. This is what Ayanda had to say:
‘The program was not quite helpful; the only thing they did was to tell us the changes. This was only on the new things that had been added and removed from the curriculum. They didn’t tell us in details about the content of the new things that were added’.
From the participants explanation it would be realised that during the training workshops organised by the DoBE, the emphasis was only to tell the teachers on what is new and what has been removed from the curriculum. In a similar manner, that is how the auditing aspect of accounting was being introduced to all the accounting teachers during the process of curriculum dissemination. This also concurs to literature as Marsh (2009) indicated that the changes in the curriculum
73 subjects are assumed to be of most useful for the learners to have a quality life envisaged by the designers and therefore necessitates the changes in the curriculum. During the dissemination process, aspects of assessment was also being introduced to the accounting teachers and according to Yende, a participant from a quintile 2 school said that we were only being told of the areas that are going to be assessed. This approach again by the disseminators of the auditing aspect of the accounting curriculum put the teachers in an uncomfortable position where they have to go some more self-study to be able to teach or implement the changes in their classrooms. Neither was there any self-study materials being given to the teachers pertaining to the auditing aspect of the accounting curriculum.
Some of the participants were not only critical of the approach used by the organisers but also on the timing of the dissemination process as a whole. They believe it was not the best time to organise workshops on curriculum contents or anything related to the curriculum. In addition, according to Naicker the most experienced participant, she said that;
The timing was bad. Since it was at the beginning of the year. It has to be at the precious year for them to best prepared.
This again puts the department and the organisers at fault as their timing would have a huge impact in the manner at which the teacher would have to swiftly adapt to the enacted curriculum changes in the accounting subject. The effects of such timing by the department would be seen in the next theme as some of the participants took a considerable amount of time to adjust their teaching to the standard of the expected changes.
The duration of the workshop also emerged as an issue that affected to experiences of the participants in the teaching of the auditing aspect of the accounting curriculum.
The duration needed to inform educators of curriculum changes is not fixed and neither is it determine by a single set of criteria but should be determine by the needs of the educators, since they are the primary reason for the workshop to have been organised. When the participants were ask if in their opinion the duration of the workshop was enough for them to have a mastery of the new curriculum content of the auditing aspect of accounting, they consensus was that the time provided for the
74 workshop was not enough. In the participants own words that is what Bolton had to say,
‘…It was less than a week about 2 to 3 days of training since other subjects were also scheduled at the same time. For me the time was short but it was informative since we had a picture of what the new changes were’.
The relatively short time allocated for the teachers to be informed about the new changes again seems to have been insufficient to fully grasp the changes without requiring that one goes for self-study. These participants main concern here seems to have been on their planning for the auditing aspects of the accounting curriculum.
Such concerns were also seen in literature as was discuss by Hargreaves (2000) who stated that, one of the most importance concerns for teachers during curriculum implementation was their planning. There was hence a need for clarity, which would be of much importance to these participants who relied on them for a successful implementation of the accounting curriculum. For this reason, the department and the organisers of the workshops should have considered the teachers’ concern for planning for their lesson as an ingredient for effective teaching of any curriculum, most especially when the curriculum was newly introduced. Although there seems to have been a justification for the time frame provided as was revealed by one of the participants what said that ‘during the workshop the focus was mostly on the corporate governance of the auditing aspect of the accounting curriculum’
(Nashaba). This therefore could have been the reason for the short time frame allocated for the accounting subject.
From a personal point of view most of the participants appreciated the workshop irrespective of the participants’ complains about the duration and the absence of content information about the auditing aspects of the new curriculum being introduced. Although they suggested that subsequent workshops should be extensive and there should be more focus on aspects of content development. In appreciation, Ayanda said that,
‘It was good that it was added. This has been a big gap in the curriculum since accounting will be meaningless if they are not audited.’
Such responses were common to all the participants and some of them expressed their difficulties in understanding the demands of the curriculum but was satisfied
75 with the addition of the auditing aspect into the accounting curriculum. This was an indication that the participants appreciation of the introduction of the auditing aspect of accounting was subject to their qualification. This was indicated by the words of Ayanda who was currently studying. She said that,
‘It was not hard for me to understand because I have a bachelor of accounting Sciences. Where I majored in accounting and auditing’.
The qualification of the teachers therefore had an impact in their experience of the curriculum change. That notwithstanding there were also the manner at which it was being introduced to the learner and to the teachers that had an impact in their appreciation of the new knowledge for those participants who saw themselves as not being too qualified to swiftly adapt to the new aspects of the auditing in accounting.
Grace one of the participants stated that,
‘It [auditing aspects in the curriculum] started in grade 10 and then to grade 11 to 12 I like it. The change is good coz it brings more what is done at the tertiary sector to the school and it’s more practical now’.
From the participant’s explanation, it would be understood that the approach used by the curriculum designer was not found to be much of a challenge to the teacher and this could have accounted for their success in teaching their learners as they used their experience in understanding the auditing aspect of the accounting curriculum in their teaching. In addition, the participant seems to have understood that the auditing aspect was more practical rather than the usual theoretical understanding of accounting that was without the auditing aspects of accounting. Considering that the introduction was from simple to complex as its being expressed in blooms taxonomy such approach thus facilitated learning. Literature also proposes that other study have shown curriculum change might be made easier by training administrators during curriculum dissemination to understanding teacher behaviors both in the process of change and in their classroom experience while carrying out the disseminations process (Yucel, 2008). However, this was a national approach not specific to the participants at the Burlington district in particular. Therefore there must have been something that the teachers at this circuit and the district in general must have done to have such an outstanding learner performance as have been indicated
76 in chapter one. The next theme therefore present some of the peculiarities of what have been done by these teachers with respect to what they did in particular.